High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Sri Shiv Nath Goswami, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent-employee which is

3. taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners-State has challenged the judgment and order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (here-in-after referred to as “The Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 1279 of 2017 whereby the claim petition preferred by the respondent- employee was allowed and the impugned order of punishment dated 21.7.2017 was set aside with all consequential benefits.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent-employee while working as Trade Tax Officer at Check Post Aam Tanda, Bareilly from 10.7.2006 till 30.06.2008 is alleged to have allowed various vehicles to move without checking and issuing a gate-pass. This caused loss of revenue to the extent of Rs.1,00,18,537/- to the Government. When this fact came to light, a meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary concerned and a decision was taken on

15.02.2012 to conduct departmental inquiry against all the persons/employees responsible for the loss. Consequently, a departmental proceeding under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline & Appeals) Rules, 1999 [here- in-after referred to as ‘Rules, 1999’] was initiated against all erring officials. Accordingly, a charge sheet dated 03.02.2015, Page No. 1 of 5 duly approved, was issued and served upon the respondent on

05.02.2015 levelling one charge against him.

5. When the respondent-employee received the charge sheet, he submitted his reply denying the charge levelled against him. In the reply, he has specifically stated that during the relevant period, he remained posted as Trade Tax Officer (Verification) at Aam Tanda, Bareilly check post. The work which was allotted to him was to issue the ST-385 receipts, gate passes and to deposit the received cash in the bank whereas the respondent-employee was not at all entrusted the work of detention of the vehicles at the barrier of check post as he had to do his work in a closed room. In regard to allotment of his work, the respondent-employee has brought on record the certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Pra.), Commercial Tax, Aam Tanda, Baheri, Bareilly dated

03.03.2015 which does not contain the work of detaining the vehicles at the barrier of the check post. Further, it has been stated in his reply that the Additional Commissioner Grade - II (SIB), Commercial Tax, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly vide his letter dated 17.07.2012 informed the Commissioner, Commercial Tax that he has imposed a penalty of Rs.43.47 lakhs against the officers posted at the check post in question, whereas the Commercial Tax Officer (Mobile Squad) has also imposed a penalty of Rs.60.14 lakhs upon the traders. Thus in this manner, a penalty of Rs.103.61 lakhs was already imposed whereas it was estimated only Rs.100.01 lakhs, meaning thereby that there was no loss of revenue caused to the government.

6. After submission of reply to the charge sheet, on 16.03.2015, the enquiry officer issued a letter to the respondent-employee to call for an enquiry on 08.04.2015, on which date, he submitted a representation stating that he has already submitted his reply and evidence in support thereof which may be considered. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report on Page No. 2 of 5

08.05.2015 wherein the charge levelled against him and other officials posted at the check post was found to have been proved. After receipt of inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 09.03.2016 who submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 16.03.2016. After considering the inquiry report and reply to the show cause notice as well as the material available on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order dated

21.07.2017 thereby punishment of ‘censure’ and recovery of Rs.2,93,124/- was passed against the respondent-employee from his salary.

7. Being aggrieved, the respondent-employee filed Claim petition before the Tribunal and the tribunal while allowing the claim petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2018 also issued certain directions for the consequential relief.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners-State has submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the material available on record in the correct perspective. Even if the enquiry was not conducted as per Rules, the tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the enquiry has not been conducted as per prescribed Rules,1999, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim petition with all consequential benefits.

10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record and we find that the incident pertains to the year 2007-2008 and under the chairmanship of the Principal Secretary a meeting was convened on 15.02.2012 and it was resolved in the meeting that a departmental inquiry be conducted against all the erring officers posted at the check post. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted against the erring Page No. 3 of 5 officials and the punishment order was passed against the respondent-employee and other officials posted at the check post.

11. The lacuna(s) pointed out in the inquiry report by the Tribunal are as under:- (a) The charge sheet was signed by the qnuiry officer on

05.02.2025 which was approved by His Excellency the Governor on 03.02.2025. Though a specific averment was pleaded by the claimant in the claim petition, the counter affidavit is silent on this point that the approval of His Excellency the Governor on the charge sheet was obtained after it was issued. In not doing so, the charge sheet issued against the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law. (b) No date, time and place has been fixed by the inquiry officer. (c) Without considering the reply of the respondent- employee, the inquiry report has been submitted by the inquiry officer. (d) In regard to allotment of the work of respondent- employee, he has brought on record the Certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Pra.), Commercial Tax, Aam Tanda, Baheri, Bareilly dated 03.03.2015 which does not contain the work of detaining the vehicles at the barrier of the check post. (e) Merely, on the basis of joint inqiury conducted by the authorities concerned, the respondent-employee was punished without considering his liability individually. (f) Though the respondent-employee had raised a specific plea that the requisite documents were not supplied to Page No. 4 of 5 him and no loss was caused to the State exchequer, but the same were not considered and the respondent- employee was punished.

12. After considering the pleadings and arguments putforth by the parties before the Tribunal, it was recorded by the Tribunal that the enquiry officer has certainly fulfilled the formalities, but not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Rules, 1999. Further, no oral investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer which is against the Rules. Failure on the part of enquiry officer to fix date, time and place and examine the witnesses in support of the charges levelled vitiates the entire proceedings. It is not clear from the record that on the basis of which evidence, the petitioner was punished for loss of State exchequer. Since the inquiry was not conducted as per Rules, 1999, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and set aside the punishment order.

13. It is well settled that reasonable opportunity to a delinquent employee to putforth his defence is an essential concomitant of principles of natural justice as well as due process of law. Learned tribunal also placed reliance upon the several judgments while allowing the claim petition.

14. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality calling for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

15. The writ petition being bereft of merit is dismissed. [ Rajeev Singh, J.] [ Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Fahim Page No. 5 of 5 MOHD FAHIM AKHTAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent-employee while working as Trade Tax Officer at Check Post Aam Tanda, Bareilly from 10.7.2006 till 30.06.2008 is alleged to have allowed various vehicles to move without checking and issuing a gate-pass. This caused loss of revenue to the extent of Rs.1,00,18,537/- to the Government. When this fact came to light, a meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary concerned and a decision was taken on

15.02.2012 to conduct departmental inquiry against all the persons/employees responsible for the loss. Consequently, a departmental proceeding under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline & Appeals) Rules, 1999 [here- in-after referred to as ‘Rules, 1999’] was initiated against all erring officials. Accordingly, a charge sheet dated 03.02.2015, Page No. 1 of 5 duly approved, was issued and served upon the respondent on

05.02.2015 levelling one charge against him.

5. When the respondent-employee received the charge sheet, he submitted his reply denying the charge levelled against him. In the reply, he has specifically stated that during the relevant period, he remained posted as Trade Tax Officer (Verification) at Aam Tanda, Bareilly check post. The work which was allotted to him was to issue the ST-385 receipts, gate passes and to deposit the received cash in the bank whereas the respondent-employee was not at all entrusted the work of detention of the vehicles at the barrier of check post as he had to do his work in a closed room. In regard to allotment of his work, the respondent-employee has brought on record the certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Pra.), Commercial Tax, Aam Tanda, Baheri, Bareilly dated

03.03.2015 which does not contain the work of detaining the vehicles at the barrier of the check post. Further, it has been stated in his reply that the Additional Commissioner Grade - II (SIB), Commercial Tax, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly vide his letter dated 17.07.2012 informed the Commissioner, Commercial Tax that he has imposed a penalty of Rs.43.47 lakhs against the officers posted at the check post in question, whereas the Commercial Tax Officer (Mobile Squad) has also imposed a penalty of Rs.60.14 lakhs upon the traders. Thus in this manner, a penalty of Rs.103.61 lakhs was already imposed whereas it was estimated only Rs.100.01 lakhs, meaning thereby that there was no loss of revenue caused to the government.

6. After submission of reply to the charge sheet, on 16.03.2015, the enquiry officer issued a letter to the respondent-employee to call for an enquiry on 08.04.2015, on which date, he submitted a representation stating that he has already submitted his reply and evidence in support thereof which may be considered. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report on Page No. 2 of 5

08.05.2015 wherein the charge levelled against him and other officials posted at the check post was found to have been proved. After receipt of inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 09.03.2016 who submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 16.03.2016. After considering the inquiry report and reply to the show cause notice as well as the material available on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order dated

21.07.2017 thereby punishment of ‘censure’ and recovery of Rs.2,93,124/- was passed against the respondent-employee from his salary.

7. Being aggrieved, the respondent-employee filed Claim petition before the Tribunal and the tribunal while allowing the claim petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2018 also issued certain directions for the consequential relief.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners-State has submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the material available on record in the correct perspective. Even if the enquiry was not conducted as per Rules, the tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the enquiry has not been conducted as per prescribed Rules,1999, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim petition with all consequential benefits.

10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record and we find that the incident pertains to the year 2007-2008 and under the chairmanship of the Principal Secretary a meeting was convened on 15.02.2012 and it was resolved in the meeting that a departmental inquiry be conducted against all the erring officers posted at the check post. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted against the erring Page No. 3 of 5 officials and the punishment order was passed against the respondent-employee and other officials posted at the check post.

11. The lacuna(s) pointed out in the inquiry report by the Tribunal are as under:- (a) The charge sheet was signed by the qnuiry officer on

05.02.2025 which was approved by His Excellency the Governor on 03.02.2025. Though a specific averment was pleaded by the claimant in the claim petition, the counter affidavit is silent on this point that the approval of His Excellency the Governor on the charge sheet was obtained after it was issued. In not doing so, the charge sheet issued against the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law. (b) No date, time and place has been fixed by the inquiry officer. (c) Without considering the reply of the respondent- employee, the inquiry report has been submitted by the inquiry officer. (d) In regard to allotment of the work of respondent- employee, he has brought on record the Certificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Pra.), Commercial Tax, Aam Tanda, Baheri, Bareilly dated 03.03.2015 which does not contain the work of detaining the vehicles at the barrier of the check post. (e) Merely, on the basis of joint inqiury conducted by the authorities concerned, the respondent-employee was punished without considering his liability individually. (f) Though the respondent-employee had raised a specific plea that the requisite documents were not supplied to Page No. 4 of 5 him and no loss was caused to the State exchequer, but the same were not considered and the respondent- employee was punished.

12. After considering the pleadings and arguments putforth by the parties before the Tribunal, it was recorded by the Tribunal that the enquiry officer has certainly fulfilled the formalities, but not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Rules, 1999. Further, no oral investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer which is against the Rules. Failure on the part of enquiry officer to fix date, time and place and examine the witnesses in support of the charges levelled vitiates the entire proceedings. It is not clear from the record that on the basis of which evidence, the petitioner was punished for loss of State exchequer. Since the inquiry was not conducted as per Rules, 1999, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and set aside the punishment order.

13. It is well settled that reasonable opportunity to a delinquent employee to putforth his defence is an essential concomitant of principles of natural justice as well as due process of law. Learned tribunal also placed reliance upon the several judgments while allowing the claim petition.

14. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality calling for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

15. The writ petition being bereft of merit is dismissed. [ Rajeev Singh, J.] [ Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Fahim Page No. 5 of 5 MOHD FAHIM AKHTAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench